It is seen from the record that on an earlier occasion, the appellant herein has filed writ petition No. 5402 of 2008 before the same learned single Judge challenging the order of resumption passed by the Tahsildar, Shamshabad Mandal in proceedings No. B/1478/2006, dated 27.11.2006. She also sought for a consequential direction to the respondents therein for restoration of the said land to the appellant. The same learned single Judge, who heard the matter, has allowed the said writ petition filed by the appellant with a direction to the appellant as well as the 1st respondent to submit their explanation/representation within a period of two weeks from that date and on such explanation/representation being filed, the Mandal Revenue Officer was directed to pass fresh orders thereon taking into account the explanation/representation that might be submitted by the appellant and the 1st respondent. In view of the fact that the appellant and the 1st respondent-writ petitioner are parties to the earlier writ petition, viz., Writ Petition No.5402 of 2008, which was disposed of by the learned single judge on 27.11.2006 as aforementioned, we are of the opinion that the learned single judge ought to have given notice to the appellant before passing the impugned order.
